"Shit Storm"

[Libsam]

Why cover it up when he could make a fortune with Pay-Per-View?

We should nationalize blow jobs for Trump, then he wont be able to pocket the money.

 

[FakeNews]

Stormy Daniels on ’60 Minutes’ is the Al Capone’s vault of Trump scandals

After weeks and weeks of relentless hype from the anti-Trump mainstream media, after endless teases about Big Reveals, Sunday night’s 60 Minutes interview with ex-porn star Stormy Daniels ended up being the Al Capone’s vault of anti-Trump news. A big, fat nothing.

Back in 1986, Geraldo Rivera hosted a live, two-hour special surrounding the opening of a vault owned by the late gangster Al Capone. After two hours of buildup, all Rivera found was dirt, empty bottles, and an embarrassment he will never live down.

On Sunday night, all 60 Minutes was able to deliver was dirt, empty promises, and defeat.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journa...-60-minutes-al-capones-vault-anti-trump-news/

 

[RobDownSouth]

Why cover it up when he could make a fortune with Pay-Per-View?

Try as I might, I cannot for the life of me think of anyone willing to pay money to watch Trump get his dick sucked.

Okay, perhaps HisArpy, but that's about it....

 

[Pookie]

And this on top of everything else ...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/26/politics/stormy-daniels-michael-cohen-defamation/index.html

Stormy Daniels sues Trump lawyer Michael Cohen for defamation

The suit, filed by her lawyer Michael Avenatti in California, came a day after CBS aired a tell-all interview with Daniels regarding an affair she alleges she had with Trump more than a decade ago, and which the White House continues to deny.

Monday's legal maneuver is an additional move in an ongoing suit by Daniels against Cohen, Trump and the limited liability company Cohen has said he established to facilitate a payment to Daniels ahead of the presidential election.

Cohen has denied Daniels' claims but admitted to making the payment. The additional claim that Daniels filed Monday states that Cohen's denial is a defamatory statement. "It was reasonably understood Mr. Cohen meant to convey that Ms. (Stephanie) Clifford is a liar," the complaint reads, referencing Daniels' real name. Avenatti added, "Mr. Cohen made the statement knowing it was false or had serious doubts about the truth of the statements."

Reacting to the latest development, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said it is another attempt to compel Cohen, or perhaps even the President, into a deposition under oath. Toobin said key questions would include whether Cohen actually used his own money to pay Daniels and whether Trump knew about it.

"Those are, I think, the key political issues here, and filing this lawsuit gives Avenatti another opportunity perhaps to get Cohen and perhaps Trump under oath," he said.

 

[Libsam]

Try as I might, I cannot for the life of me think of anyone willing to pay money to watch Trump get his dick sucked.

Okay, perhaps HisArpy, but that's about it....

/russian accent

The left is like little baby, obsessed with Trump shit and piss and cock.

 

[Sean]

And this on top of everything else ...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/26/politics/stormy-daniels-michael-cohen-defamation/index.html

Stormy Daniels sues Trump lawyer Michael Cohen for defamation

The suit, filed by her lawyer Michael Avenatti in California, came a day after CBS aired a tell-all interview with Daniels regarding an affair she alleges she had with Trump more than a decade ago, and which the White House continues to deny.

Monday's legal maneuver is an additional move in an ongoing suit by Daniels against Cohen, Trump and the limited liability company Cohen has said he established to facilitate a payment to Daniels ahead of the presidential election.

Cohen has denied Daniels' claims but admitted to making the payment. The additional claim that Daniels filed Monday states that Cohen's denial is a defamatory statement. "It was reasonably understood Mr. Cohen meant to convey that Ms. (Stephanie) Clifford is a liar," the complaint reads, referencing Daniels' real name. Avenatti added, "Mr. Cohen made the statement knowing it was false or had serious doubts about the truth of the statements."

Reacting to the latest development, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said it is another attempt to compel Cohen, or perhaps even the President, into a deposition under oath. Toobin said key questions would include whether Cohen actually used his own money to pay Daniels and whether Trump knew about it.

"Those are, I think, the key political issues here, and filing this lawsuit gives Avenatti another opportunity perhaps to get Cohen and perhaps Trump under oath," he said.

I'm pretty sure Cohen doesn't want to go to court. I'm damn sure he doesn't want Trump exposed to a deposition. And neither Trump nor Cohen want a discovery phase to happen.

 

[Pookie]

I'm pretty sure Cohen doesn't want to go to court. I'm damn sure he doesn't want Trump exposed to a deposition. And neither Trump nor Cohen want a discovery phase to happen.

I get the impression that Michael Avenatti is just beginning to play hardball with Cohen and Trump over this.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

/russian accent

The left is like little baby, obsessed with Trump shit and piss and cock.

When there's nothing else of substance or interesting about someone, you gotta run with the material that's there!

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxpj6grFIe1qcaomb.gif

 

[Pookie]

When there's nothing else of substance or interesting about someone, you gotta run with the material that's there!

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxpj6grFIe1qcaomb.gif

And it was Libsam that had to get shit and piss into the mix.

What is it with these deplorables?

 

[Pookie]

Avenatti is also forcing the campaign finance law issue with it ...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-email-shows-cohen-tried-keep-me-case-n860156

Stormy Daniels filed an amended lawsuit Monday that alleges Donald Trump's personal lawyer defamed her and violated campaign finance law by brokering a "hush agreement" just before the 2016 election.

The new filing in federal court in Los Angeles comes less than 24 hours after a television interview in which Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, said she had unprotected sex with Trump in 2006 and was later threatened for telling her story.

...

It goes on to say, "the Hush Agreement was entered with the illegal aim, design, and purpose of circumventing federal campaign finance law."

 

[RobDownSouth]

And it was Libsam that had to get shit and piss into the mix.

What is it with these deplorables?

Methinks the Vettebigot has at long last found his soulmate in Libsam.

 

[Sean]

Avenatti is also forcing the campaign finance law issue with it ...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-email-shows-cohen-tried-keep-me-case-n860156

Stormy Daniels filed an amended lawsuit Monday that alleges Donald Trump's personal lawyer defamed her and violated campaign finance law by brokering a "hush agreement" just before the 2016 election.

The new filing in federal court in Los Angeles comes less than 24 hours after a television interview in which Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, said she had unprotected sex with Trump in 2006 and was later threatened for telling her story.

...

It goes on to say, "the Hush Agreement was entered with the illegal aim, design, and purpose of circumventing federal campaign finance law."

Like I told Tim earlier, an NDA relating to an illegal act isn't enforceable.

 

[Pookie]

Like I told Tim earlier, an NDA relating to an illegal act isn't enforceable.

Truth.

 

[Hypoxia]

Is a contract enforceable if signed with a false name? IIRC the NDA was signed STORMY DANIELS and not STEPHANIE CLIFFORD. Or did I miss that?

Meanwhile, I must admit I'm not really Hypoxia Smurf. If I sign that name, have I just volunteered for something, or can I escape? Did The Artist Sometimes Known As Prince ever sign legal documents with that weird glyph? Are glyphs and aliases equivalent to an illiterate signing 'X'?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Like I told Tim earlier, an NDA relating to an illegal act isn't enforceable.

If by an "illegal act" you mean a potential violation of campaign finance laws, then the true fact is, it depends. There was nothing illegal about Daniels/Clifford's agreement of non-disclosure in exchange for monetary compensation with regard to a perfectly legal and consensual sex act between two adults. The fact that one or more parties may have illegally used funds for the purpose of securing that agreement does not automatically negate her obligations under the agreement.

But neither would that agreement protect her or in anyway absolve her of truthfully testifying under subpoena in a criminal prosecution related to campaign finance violations.

 

[phrodeau]

If by an "illegal act" you mean a potential violation of campaign finance laws, then the true fact is, it depends. There was nothing illegal about Daniels/Clifford's agreement of non-disclosure in exchange for monetary compensation with regard to a perfectly legal and consensual sex act between two adults. The fact that one or more parties may have illegally used funds for the purpose of securing that agreement does not automatically negate her obligations under the agreement.

But neither would that agreement protect her or in anyway absolve her of truthfully testifying under subpoena in a criminal prosecution related to campaign finance violations.

Actually, under New York law adultery is a crime. Stormy's complaint mentions it on page 13 line 24.

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=4421629-Stormy-Daniels-First-Amended-Complaint

 

[richard_daily]

If by an "illegal act" you mean a potential violation of campaign finance laws, then the true fact is, it depends. There was nothing illegal about Daniels/Clifford's agreement of non-disclosure in exchange for monetary compensation with regard to a perfectly legal and consensual sex act between two adults. The fact that one or more parties may have illegally used funds for the purpose of securing that agreement does not automatically negate her obligations under the agreement.

But neither would that agreement protect her or in anyway absolve her of truthfully testifying under subpoena in a criminal prosecution related to campaign finance violations.

Too bad Trump decided not to sign it.

Is he going to go to court to enforce? That would mean discovery... I'd LOVE to see it go down that path. You think he'll bite?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

And it was Libsam that had to get shit and piss into the mix.

What is it with these deplorables?

Methinks the Vettebigot has at long last found his soulmate in Libsam.

What's that old saying? There's a lid for every pot?